Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PoanickyBoad

Using electronic recording devices during takeoff and landing

Recommended Posts

I've been on a few flights with Air New Zealand recently and am becoming interested in making recordings as well as taking photos during the flight. The annoying thing is that the crew seem to prohibit the use of any electronic devices during takeoff and landing (i.e. the parts of the flight most probable to be scenic) so I co-operate and turn my recording device (a Galaxy S3 in airplane mode) right off when the call is made. Going onto sites like Youtube and Airliners.net however reveals a plethora of photos and (in the case of Youtube) even full-flight video recordings. Do these rules differ in other countries or are the people taking these photos/videos just being sneaky with a hand-embedded camera or something?? 

 

If there are any people here who like to take videos/photos during flights I'd be interested to hear how this is overcome. I really don't want to break the rules as I imagine they are there for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Don't want to encourage people to break the rules... Just saying the wings not going to drop off if you decide to record

 

Only reason I frown upon it is the fact that you have potential loose object that can fly out of your hand in the case of a rejected take off or rough landing.

Share this post


Link to post

The law was just changed in the US last month. I've filmed several takeoffs and landings since on US airlines with no issue at all. The rest of the world will probably follow the FAA's lead on this but it may not happen quickly unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post

Most of those videos, at least the ones taken from seats aboard US carriers are from people being sneaky. The wings aren't going to fall off, but you can potentially interfere with the avionics. If the ILS signal is interfered with, you can take the plane off course on a low visibility landing approach and potentally hit an obstacle, in which case the wings will fall off.

 

Asides from that you are putting the flight attendant in the position of either having to enforce a rule on you or ignore it and put herself and you at risk of punishment if there is an FAA inspector ghost riding in the back who notices.

 

Anyways this is all mostly moot now since the FAA recently caved in to pressure to relax these rules. Each airline and aircraft type still has to be approved individually for this so there are still flights that go out under the old rules of everything having to be off. However, even under the new rules, during low visibility operations such as cat 2/3 landings, you will still be required to turn devices off.

Share this post


Link to post

I have been filming and shooting for years from my seat. Never had to do it "sneaky".

 

Only once I had a F/A tell me not to have the strap around my neck (similar to what Rob Said).

 

But have never been told I couldn't film or shoot photo's. In fact many flight crews do it. Just look at YouTube...

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said, you're just putting them in a position to have to choose to 'let it go' or not. Crews from countries other than the US may not have as restrictive rules, so they may be free do things like shoot personal videos while the plane is landing. Or it may not occur to them that the entire world sees whatever they put on youtube. Which is something that happened to a crew back at my old airline recently, and got fired for the picture they sent to the chive.

Share this post


Link to post

I know that on an Air Canada flight I took recently the FA had no issue with it. She was sitting adjacent to us for landing and so I thought I should ask and she said to go right ahead. It was on my phone too, and before the law changed to allow electronic devices in flight.

Share this post


Link to post

Excuse my ignorance, but how could electronic devices possibly interfere with avionics etc? I mean they work on different freq bands, and all airlines I have flown with in the past years had no problem wiht using such stuff during cruise - it's just porhibited as long as the seat belt sings are on. So why would interferences be a problem at lower altitudes, but not at higher ones? Is there any concrete evidence of such interferences or is that just an assumption dating back to the beginning of mobile phones?

 

Please don't take this as an offense or anything it's just something I never could understand, although I have heard a few other (some very good and clear) reasons why electronic device should not be used during take-off and landing.

Share this post


Link to post

bedtime reading ;)http://www.ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050232846_2005233838.pdf

 

I only glanced through a few pages. Take off and landing is a critical phase of flight, we all know a few people leave the phone on, I've even done it myself many times. I guess the question is what would happen if 300 people are making phone calls during a CATIII approach? I don't want to be onboard to find out :/

 

 

Something to note from the summary of that article

 

"Existing certification and modelling tools are not adequate"

Share this post


Link to post

Excuse my ignorance, but how could electronic devices possibly interfere with avionics etc? I mean they work on different freq bands, and all airlines I have flown with in the past years had no problem wiht using such stuff during cruise - it's just porhibited as long as the seat belt sings are on. So why would interferences be a problem at lower altitudes, but not at higher ones? Is there any concrete evidence of such interferences or is that just an assumption dating back to the beginning of mobile phones?

 

Please don't take this as an offense or anything it's just something I never could understand, although I have heard a few other (some very good and clear) reasons why electronic device should not be used during take-off and landing.

The FAA assumes that they interfere because they have not been tested to prove they don't. It is impossibly expensive to test all the different models of phones and electronic devices to prove conclusively that there is no risk of interference with reception of navaids. I know that cellphones can cause interference with communications since they cause a distinct noise in the headsets if they are on.

 

The reason it has been acceptable above 10,000' for their usage is that you are no longer near the ground. If they cause the plane to go off course, you won't be in as much risk of hitting a tower.

 

As for how they can interfere with the avionics, I'm not an EE but my understanding is that all electronic devices emit rf energy just by being turned on, and if they are not shielded adequately, rf transmissions of unknown strength and frequency will be transmitted, possibly causing inaccurate indications with the nav systems. You don't want to be on an airplane doing an ILS to minimums when the signal starts telling the pilots to go low inappropriately. It may get rather painful for all on board.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the explanation, Rob and Kevin. Sounds reasonable to me now.

Share this post


Link to post

The original thinking was that Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) emit electro-magnetic radiation which might interfere with aircraft systems. They were banned on the "precautionary principle."  Recent research has shown that most commercial airplanes can tolerate radio interference signals from PEDs.

 

Individual airlines will have to assess if their aircraft can tolerate radio interference from PEDs  before they will be permitted. They will have to  evaluate avionics as well as changes to stowage rules and passenger announcements. Each airline will also need to revise manuals, checklists for crew member training materials, carry-on baggage programs and passenger briefings before expanding use of PEDs. Each airline will determine how and when they will allow passengers broader use of PEDs so it isn't an overall permission. 

 

Cell-phones are not affected because  they are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, not the FAA .

 

Photography and filming are different matters. Airliners are private property and airlines can make any rules they chose , taking into account privacy and other passenger concerns.

Share this post


Link to post

I've been on a few flights with Air New Zealand recently and am becoming interested in making recordings as well as taking photos during the flight. The annoying thing is that the crew seem to prohibit the use of any electronic devices during takeoff and landing (i.e. the parts of the flight most probable to be scenic) so I co-operate and turn my recording device (a Galaxy S3 in airplane mode) right off when the call is made. Going onto sites like Youtube and Airliners.net however reveals a plethora of photos and (in the case of Youtube) even full-flight video recordings. Do these rules differ in other countries or are the people taking these photos/videos just being sneaky with a hand-embedded camera or something?? 

 

If there are any people here who like to take videos/photos during flights I'd be interested to hear how this is overcome. I really don't want to break the rules as I imagine they are there for a reason.

I use a Sony Camera and not a cell phone and they never bother me about it....here is my evidence of that:

 

 

 

Not sure what they can do about it but they never do anything to me. New Zealand is one of the most laid back places on the planet where the police don't carry guns and remind the criminals to 'blow on your pie' before they eat it so they don't burn their tongues, so I wouldn't worry about anything happening because you filmed a landing or takeoff, but maybe use a camera instead of a cell phone is all....Cheers

Share this post


Link to post

The rules were introduced because of safety concerns. Why should anyone want to break them just to take pictures for their own amusement?

Share this post


Link to post

ytz is only telling half the story... here's what happened to the rest of the landing he electronically disturbed with his Sony  :ph34r: :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku8Ip9dU2CM#t=5

 

I always thought that was a great video. That one was done by the book. Too bad that happens quite a lot with those Dash 8's as they are a great aircraft other then the landing gear. Reason why I was filming mine was to make sure it was safe.  :lol:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_8_landing_gear_incidents

 

 

The rules were introduced because of safety concerns. Why should anyone want to break them just to take pictures for their own amusement?

 

Those rules are in place to protect the airline from litigation for when something does go wrong. The time when things are more likely to go wrong is during landing and take-off and the airlines don't want that in film. Not every airline has this rule.

 

Most likely Air New Zealand doesn't allow it is because they fly regularly into Wellington and Queenstown airports that are considered high risk. Landing at Wellington is like a roller-coaster ride and looks bad on Air New Zealand PR when you post scary videos like that on YouTube when people actually do throw-up quite a lot flying into Wellington. It is a unique place in the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Those rules are in place to protect the airline from litigation for when something does go wrong. The time when things are more likely to go wrong is during landing and take-off and the airlines don't want that in film.

 

The rules about PEDs imposed by the regulatory authorities to ensure safety of passengers, not by the airlines.

 

 

A camera isn't going to interfere with aviation equipment

 

You know what electro-magnetic radiation your camera emits? I don't know what mine does.

 

My question remains - Why should anyone want to break them just to take pictures for their own amusement?

Share this post


Link to post

You know what electro-magnetic radiation your camera emits? I don't know what mine does.

 

Even if I was using a Mechanical camera with no electronics at all that would be against the rule. It is the filming that they don't want during landing and takeoff regardless of what you are using to film.

 

 

 

My question remains - Why should anyone want to break them just to take pictures for their own amusement?

 

Because everything in life is a risk assessment and I have a freedom of choice. I used to be a freestyle skier doing backflips on skis, jump out of an airplane, climb a mountain, surf in the ocean, break the speed limit on my motorcycle up a mountain pass....live my life to the fullest. New Zealand is the best place on the planet to live so I have no problem filming a landing into Wellington or Queenstown Airport. 

 

Better to live a short life to the fullest then a long life full of regret.......If you don't understand that then I guess you are the type of person that has never broke a speed limit.

Share this post


Link to post

To answer the OP:

NZ has a no-fault personal accident compensation payout funded by the state. 

However, owners and operators of whatever description are obliged to inform people of potential risk.

Once they've done that, you are free to do any damn stupid thing you like!

(and see post above...  :lol:  )

 

So, thank the crew for informing you, wait until they have moved on, then shoot away.

Especially in flightmode, your camera really does not pose any threat to air safety whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post

Because everything in life is a risk assessment and I have a freedom of choice.

You don't have a freedom of choice to override industry risk assessments and endanger others.

Share this post


Link to post

Because everything in life is a risk assessment and I have a freedom of choice. I used to be a freestyle skier doing backflips on skis, jump out of an airplane, climb a mountain, surf in the ocean, break the speed limit on my motorcycle up a mountain pass....live my life to the fullest. New Zealand is the best place on the planet to live so I have no problem filming a landing into Wellington or Queenstown Airport.

 

Better to live a short life to the fullest then a long life full of regret.......If you don't understand that then I guess you are the type of person that has never broke a speed limit.

The only person that gets hurt when you do backflips is yourself. And that is perfectly fine to break rules and take risks with your own life. However, I do not believe that it is ok to break rules and put the lives of others at risk for your own pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post

You don't have a freedom of choice to override industry risk assessments and endanger others.

 

Howard, you missed the point of this thread from the beginning. We are talking about Air New Zealand here, The reason for the rule is not because of what you describing as a risk to the aircraft from electromagnets from a camera, Air New Zealand has this rule for a different reason and that is they don't want people to film landings and takeoff.

 

Air Canada for example does allow people to film during landings and take off as do many other airlines and tell the passengers to do so, so it is nothing to do with a Camera risking the aircraft. As I already said the reason why Air New Zealand has this policy compared to other airlines is most likely that they land in some of the harshest conditions compared to other regions on the earth, and it is very common to see people vomiting while landing in New Zealand (I have seen that happen), they don't want bouncy windy landings to be filmed from inside the aircraft which are common here.

 

This isn't an FAA thing as FAA is in the United States and not New Zealand. We have rules here and we also have the choice to break those rules. I don't see why a guy that lives in England is so concerned about what we do in New Zealand in the first place.

 

 

To answer the OP:

NZ has a no-fault personal accident compensation payout funded by the state. 

However, owners and operators of whatever description are obliged to inform people of potential risk.

Once they've done that, you are free to do any damn stupid thing you like!

(and see post above...  :lol:  )

 

So, thank the crew for informing you, wait until they have moved on, then shoot away.

Especially in flightmode, your camera really does not pose any threat to air safety whatsoever.

WingZ pretty much describes the situation the best

 

 

The only person that gets hurt when you do backflips is yourself. And that is perfectly fine to break rules and take risks with your own life. However, I do not believe that it is ok to break rules and put the lives of others at risk for your own pleasure.

Show me where this is true, and if it is true why do other airlines allow it and not Air New Zealand. Also why are there thousands of videos on YouTube filmed by pilots from the flight deck???? Like I said above even if your camera was mechanical with no electronic parts they (ANZ) don't want you filming (but don't really enforce it). If your electromagnetic argument was true then shame on all those pilots for filming their landings and posting them in YouTube  :O

 

And if it was seriously that much of a risk then camera's would not be allowed on the aircraft in the first place, just like Box Cutters 

 

I don't think all those passengers realize what a risk this crew is doing to them, oh the horror   :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Matthew, we are discussing electronic devices. Whether or not any particular airline allows filming or not is an entirely different policy which is irrelevant to this discussion about electronic devices. If the filming device is an electronic device, then it cannot be operated when electronic devices are disallowed, regardless of their policy on filming.

Share this post


Link to post

Matthew, we are discussing electronic devices. Whether or not any particular airline allows filming or not is an entirely different policy which is irrelevant to this discussion about electronic devices. If the filming device is an electronic device, then it cannot be operated when electronic devices are disallowed, regardless of their policy on filming.

We are talking about a guy in New Zealand that has a particular interest in filming take-off and landings on Air New Zealand flights,...go back and read the original post once again. He wasn't talking about any other country or airline. He wants to film landings and take-offs in New Zealand and is wondering why you can't when you can in other regions.

 

Yes Air New Zealand doesn't allow it where other airlines do. I pointed out that I break that rule many many times on Air New Zealand flights and 9 times out of 10 they don't tell me to stop when they see me doing it. On one occasion ever the flight attendant asked me to stop and all I did was lower my camera and when she moved on proceeded to film again....I never paused it.

 

What you guys want to make of that is entirely up to you. I find it laughable that you think an airliner is going to crash because a camera is filming when there are literally thousands of videos on YouTube showing what we are talking about and no one can show me any documented cases of where a camera has caused an airliner to have any incident due to electromagnetic activity. I don't use a mobile to film, I have used a Sony DSC Camera, and if anyone thinks that that Camera will bring down an airliner or is unsafe then I don't believe that for a second.

 

As the original post said many other countries and airlines allow it, Why ANZ doesn't is up to ANZ and I don't think it is because of electromagnetic activity.,.,,,I think it is more likely because of the many bouncy landings and take-offs due to our high winds. But that is my theory on it....Cheers

 

EDIT:

 

Here are our top 5 winds of yesterday, these winds are very normal in New Zealand and very much a risk to flight safety. Better to stow your laptop, phone, camera etc when flying into these surface winds:

 

1 Kelburn, Wellington 113 km/h

2 Wellington Airport 83 km/h

3 Mana Island 80 km/h

4 Kaikoura 76 km/h

5 Blenheim Airport 70 km/h

Rank of the locations with the highest wind gust recorded yesterday, in order from the highest to less

Share this post


Link to post

Given how painful (in the ear) it became after our local providers added cell towers so we ppl could talk when passing through underground tunnels, I am more concerned about shouting idiots on the plane. I can barely take it when I am on the train, but atleast I can walk away to the next compartment...being stuck on the seat in the plane with a seat belt and nowhere togo, as the guy/gal next to me tries to explain to his/her significant other they are delayed as the plane enters a hold...oh the misery...it's a safety hazard fo sho :LMAO: .

Share this post


Link to post